Net Neutrality

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It seems like the thing that allowed the internet to beat cable television as a media provider was that it didn't function like the telecom companies.

The fact that those companies can now work to make the internet function along the model that is most beneficial to them, the cable television model, is sort of an own goal, free-market-wise.

Not bad, or even inherently more expensive... just a return to a model that consumers already abandoned.

Although, as far as I am concerned, go ahead and make the internet worse. Maybe these damn kids'll get their noses out of them celly-phones they like su'damn much.

Not that repetition number five billion will make a difference, but all data is not equal. Data packets carrying information to self driving vehicles is clearly more important that data packets carrying a pic of Hitler bowling to Nuke Dog.

Thus a Federal mandate declaring that there can be no discrimination between these packets not only retards innovation and development, but it does so dangerously.

First: I love those Hitler memes. How dare you?

Second: As I understand the NN mandate (which is not very deeply, so I could be wrong), it didn't forbid ISPs from varying their rates of packet transmission, it required them to publicly disclose what packets they were favoring or disfavoring, and justify that under the auspices of being a public utility.

[The Conservative]

You are borderline retarded, TC. I don't want to engage with you because you always insist on making it insulting, and beating on a retarded person is a no-win situation for anybody.

I don't make in insulting, you do that all on your own by name calling, and posting blatherskite.

[Speaker to Animals]

If we are going to transition to a transportation network that relies upon centralized control over a network, then the Internet is not going to work for that. We will need to build something completely different, using a different protocol and architecture. It would be more like how a wireless network operates since they are only allowed to have a fraction of a second of downtime in a year by contract. \

You can't do stuff like that across the Internet. It's designed such that packet loss is expected.

[The Conservative]

A self-driving vehicle that requires TCP/IP packets to not drop in order not to kill people is probably a non-starter.

TCP/IP was not designed for critical systems.

Yes, all data is equal. It's just fucking data, people. 1s and 0s.

LOL

So the cure for cancer is just as important as streaming Patton while you whack off to it?

[DBTrek]

A self-driving vehicle that requires TCP/IP packets to not drop in order not to kill people is probably a non-starter.

TCP/IP was not designed for critical systems.

Yes, all data is equal. It's just fucking data, people. 1s and 0s.

LOL

Brilliant emotional retort.

Your ability to spout emotional nonsense while whoring for attention is rivaled only by SJW tweens. And yet, you’ve done a 180 on the topic based on nothing. Derp derp.

Second, “all data is equal because it’s 1s and 0s” is so monumentally stupid it can scarcely be considered a serious statement. Akin to saying “all matter is equal because it’s all made of atoms”. Hella derp.

As for HM, you understand it wrong.

[Speaker to Animals]

It seems like the thing that allowed the internet to beat cable television as a media provider was that it didn't function like the telecom companies.

The fact that those companies can now work to make the internet function along the model that is most beneficial to them, the cable television model, is sort of an own goal, free-market-wise.

Not bad, or even inherently more expensive... just a return to a model that consumers already abandoned.

Although, as far as I am concerned, go ahead and make the internet worse. Maybe these damn kids'll get their noses out of them celly-phones they like su'damn much.

Not that repetition number five billion will make a difference, but all data is not equal. Data packets carrying information to self driving vehicles is clearly more important that data packets carrying a pic of Hitler bowling to Nuke Dog.

Thus a Federal mandate declaring that there can be no discrimination between these packets not only retards innovation and development, but it does so dangerously.

First: I love those Hitler memes. How dare you?

Second: As I understand the NN mandate (which is not very deeply, so I could be wrong), it didn't forbid ISPs from varying their rates of packet transmission, it required them to publicly disclose what packets they were favoring or disfavoring, and justify that under the auspices of being a public utility.

No, it forbids their any longer trying to favor packet data to and from one business to any other.

NN happened after two administrations from two different parties battled for YEARS with these broadband companies to stop their anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices to no avail. These companies just kept doing it, getting caught, and then saying they won't do it again (but they kept doing it). The 2015 order was the third attempt to get it through (the ISP monopolies kept taking the FCC to court before) and finally stuck when they were reclassified as utilities (which they are now, since we need the Internet now to do many things).

[The Conservative]

Not that repetition number five billion will make a difference, but all data is not equal. Data packets carrying information to self driving vehicles is clearly more important that data packets carrying a pic of Hitler bowling to Nuke Dog.

Thus a Federal mandate declaring that there can be no discrimination between these packets not only retards innovation and development, but it does so dangerously.

First: I love those Hitler memes. How dare you?

Second: As I understand the NN mandate (which is not very deeply, so I could be wrong), it didn't forbid ISPs from varying their rates of packet transmission, it required them to publicly disclose what packets they were favoring or disfavoring, and justify that under the auspices of being a public utility.

No, it forbids their any longer trying to favor packet data to and from one business to any other.

NN happened after two administrations from two different parties battled for YEARS with these broadband companies to stop their anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices to no avail. These companies just kept doing it, getting caught, and then saying they won't do it again (but they kept doing it). The 2015 order was the third attempt to get it through (the ISP monopolies kept taking the FCC to court before) and finally stuck when they were reclassified as utilities (which they are now, since we need the Internet now to do many things).

FCC is not the way to get things done.

[Speaker to Animals]

A self-driving vehicle that requires TCP/IP packets to not drop in order not to kill people is probably a non-starter.

TCP/IP was not designed for critical systems.

Yes, all data is equal. It's just fucking data, people. 1s and 0s.

LOL

Brilliant emotional retort.

Your ability to spout emotional nonsense while whoring for attention is rivaled only by SJW tweens. And yet, you’ve done a 180 on the topic based on nothing. Derp derp.

Second, “all data is equal because it’s 1s and 0s” is so monumentally stupid it can scarcely be considered a serious statement. Akin to saying “all matter is equal because it’s all made of atoms”. Hella derp.

As for HM, you understand it wrong.

Weird how you emotionally responded to a statement of rational fact and labeled facts as "emotion".

The Internet cannot be used for critical systems. It's literally designed for packet loss, built into the thing from the start. So, yeah, all data is equal. There is no -- or should be no -- any critical information flowing across the Internet. By that I mean data that, if it is dropped or latent, could result in serious harm to systems or humans. If you design such a system and market it, then you will be held liable in court for damages.

Any kind of data that is critical in that way has to be transmitted across a reliable network. The Internet -- this apparently is news to you -- is *not* reliable.

Like I said before (and you ignored), it's better to look at the wireless systems because the manufacturers of that network hardware are required by contract to produce systems that have downtime measured in a fraction of a second per year. They don't use the Internet. LOL

I realize I am trying to explain this to an IT person, and this is engineering, but come on. This is not complicated to understand.

[Speaker to Animals]

In fact..

I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that self-driving vehicles will be allowed to depend upon network traffic of any kind for immediate control and safety. That will have to be done onboard. Navigation, traffic, and analysis data is not critical. It might suck if you can't get the latest traffic data to compute the optimal route, but that's not going to kill you. If you need packet data immediately available every second without latency or loss in order to not crash into a tree.. that's probably a bad idea.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

As for HM, you understand it wrong.

Whelp, I know the innernet travel through tubes. We'll just leave it at that.

Although, I am curious to see whether the best/worst case scenarios with the repeal come to fruition. A lot of theorizing about markets and regulations and their relationship to innovation and consumer benefit to be tested.